Each paper will be approximately 1800 words in length and will have separate paragraphs that provide the following:
0) A heading including your name, debate paper #, date submitted, topic and word count.
1) An introduction to the issue that provides historical perspective, a list of “stakeholders,” and a list of sub-issues that must be addressed to systematically deal with the main issue.
2) An overview of an article representing the “yes” position, describing the argument, the facts used to support it, and the ideological framework.
3) An analysis of the “yes” position that identifies holes in the argument, faulty reasoning, overstatements, and other ways evidence is mishandled.
4) An overview of an article representing the “no” position, describing the argument, the facts used to support it, and the ideological framework.
5) An analysis of the “no” position that identifies holes in the argument, faulty reasoning, overstatements, and other ways empirical evidence is mishandled.
6) An overview of the argument and evidence provided in a third article (of your choice). This paragraph should focus on ways this article challenges or extends the arguments and evidence presented in the articles described previously.
7) A statement of your perspective on the issue and a brief description of what you consider priority actions needed to respond to the issue.
8) Full citations for all articles referred to.
debate paper
Each paper will be approximately 1800 words in length and will have separate paragraphs that provide the following:
0) A heading including your name, debate paper #, date submitted, topic and word count.
1) An introduction to the issue that provides historical perspective, a list of “stakeholders,” and a list of sub-issues that must be addressed to systematically deal with the main issue.
2) An overview of an article representing the “yes” position, describing the argument, the facts used to support it, and the ideological framework.
3) An analysis of the “yes” position that identifies holes in the argument, faulty reasoning, overstatements, and other ways evidence is mishandled.
4) An overview of an article representing the “no” position, describing the argument, the facts used to support it, and the ideological framework.
5) An analysis of the “no” position that identifies holes in the argument, faulty reasoning, overstatements, and other ways empirical evidence is mishandled.
6) An overview of the argument and evidence provided in a third article (of your choice). This paragraph should focus on ways this article challenges or extends the arguments and evidence presented in the articles described previously.
7) A statement of your perspective on the issue and a brief description of what you consider priority actions needed to respond to the issue.
8) Full citations for all articles referred to.